Weinheimer v. Hutzler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
We find no substantial error in the judgments appealed from except in respect to the-provisions adjudging recovery for any deficiency remaining after sale. The evidence was sufficient to warrant an inference that the materials were furnished and the labor performed with the “ consent ” of the owner within the meaning of section 3 of the Lien Law. (Pope v. Heckscher, 109 App. Div. 495; affd., 190 N. Y. 508; National Wall Paper Co. v. Sire, 163 id. 131.) But personal liability is another matter. Evidence which warrants an inference of consent sufficient to give a lien is not necessarily…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schwartz Company, Inc. v. . Aimwell Company, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Schwartz & Co. v. Aimwell Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Pope v. HeckscherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Pope v. . HeckscherNew York Court of Appeals · 1907
3Cited by3 opinions
- Noce v. KaufmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
- Adams Engineering Co. v. MenowitzNew York Supreme Court · 1967
- Herkimer County Indus. Dev. Agency v. Village of HerkimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2019